The title of this post is not a mistake. Even though it is ‘the’ autopsy of some dialogs, I would not share it with you if they were not such perfect examples of what is going on in ‘THE’ dialog between the left and the right. The dialog at this point is pretty much dead, and there are many ways to dissect it. Mine is just one attempt.
Doing it feels very much like the situation in the picture above – as if I was dissecting something from another world.

About two months ago I received a forward from a friend with the subject: “Science needs your voice.”
Of course it was baloney. They didn’t need my voice, they were asking for my money. The implied assumption is that their voice is my voice, and what science needs is their political advocacy. Both assumptions are questionable.
I don’t think they would give a lab-rat’s ass for my voice, but I will make it heard anyway.

I met a truly caring person at a dinner party, someone with the best of intentions and a militant attitude about her moral sensibilities. At times, I had the feeling that she was on a constant lookout for things I may say that she can get indignant about.
I had no doubt about her sincerity, I had no doubt that her heart was in the right place.
On whatever subject we discussed, I had no doubt that she took the position she did because she considered it to be the most moral position available. It was clear from her attitude that she would consider any alternative position not just wrong, but outright immoral.
I found myself, as at many other times talking to left-wingers, in front of a dilemma: which aspect should I address: reason or morality? Logic or emotions? How can I step back to talk about the underlying problem, the fact that compassion, feelings and good intentions are NOT moral if the actions they lead to do more harm than good?The morality of our actions should only be judged by their results, not by the intentions motivating them. All too often, the left uses its good intentions as an excuse to explain away the harm they do.

I wish I could claim authorship of the title of this post, but I shamelessly plucked it from an Economist article: “In defence of the childless.” The July 29th issue has another article (The rise of childlessness) to reinforce the “there is nothing to see here” message.

I got into an exchange with a Muslim professor of a Canadian university recently in an internet discussion group. He is a strong and vocal opponent of ‘Islamism’. It was that exchange that led to this post and the questions I will discuss in it.

Can there be a moderate Islam? I don’t believe so, but the questions at this point in history is not just about Islam but Western civilization as well. The question is all about balls, about having them and losing them, figuratively speaking, of course. Continue reading →

…and why we still do not…

Issue # 15 of Dabiq magazine printed in 1437 Shawwal (that’s July 2016 for you dumb kuffars) has an article titled: “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You” written “to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms – yet again – why we hate you and why we fight you.”Continue reading →

Meta

The dialog didn’t, doesn’t and won’t die peacefully. Yes, it is still kicking, it is still getting up to feed on the brain of whatever is still alive. The dialog is zombified. The censorship, the lawfare, the protests, the riots, the shouting down of speakers, and the firing of those who get out of line […]

In my last post I vented my frustration with the sorry state of the left-right dialog. I described the problem, but we are still left with a set of questions: What is the basis of the differences? What makes them so predictable? What stands in the way of productive communication? Political ideology There could be […]

The title of this post is not a mistake. Even though it is ‘the’ autopsy of some dialogs, I would not share it with you if they were not such perfect examples of what is going on in ‘THE’ dialog between the left and the right. The dialog at this point is pretty much dead, […]

I was observing yet another strange discussion conducted seriously on serious subjects by serious people. Serious philosophical arguments based on painfully obvious fallacies: Truth can (and should) be absolute Certain moral principles are universal The most fundamental human rights are “natural” Every one of the above statements is wrong. Truth cannot be absolute and it […]

About two months ago I received a forward from a friend with the subject: “Science needs your voice.” Of course it was baloney. They didn’t need my voice, they were asking for my money. The implied assumption is that their voice is my voice, and what science needs is their political advocacy. Both assumptions are […]